4 ms·
This 'contagion effect', also supported by research in relation to media coverage of suicide, has often been discussed after mass shootings. Yet, little tangibl
by gojomo 7y ago
This 'contagion effect', also supported by research in relation to media coverage of suicide, has often been discussed after mass shootings. Yet, little tangible action has been taken.
Maybe it's time for some new federal laws. Some possibilities:
• make reporting about mass shootings subject to a mandatory "cooling off" waiting period, of 48 hours to 1 week, to reduce the sensational allure of such "hot" stories to the mentally-unstable
• ban the reporting of salacious details, like a shooter's name & motivations, or specific weapons & actions – specialized information which is mainly of use to deranged individuals, rather than normal citizens
• set up a government office which would "fact-check" & approve stories about mass shootings before they're published/broadcast
• require reporters to receive official training about responsible reporting, and mandate reporting licenses to exclude careless or sketchy/unstable people from risky reporting activities
- henryfjordan 7y agoAll of these suggestions violate the 1st amendment. Also there are no "reporting licenses".
- basementcat 7y agoOne possible workaround may be for the President to post something outrageous on Twitter right after the shooting to distract the Media's attention. Then again, maybe the Administration has already been doing this.
- ryacko 7y agoYes, there is a such thing as reporting licenses, it is ad money.
- gojomo 7y agoCan't some words written down nearly 230 years ago be updated to account for what we know to be dangerous now, in 2019? All safe, responsible reporting can still be allowed. I don't think the founders ever considered 24-hour cable news, or sensational (and often false!) instant-reporting via the internet and social networks. That's what's feeding these copycat mass shooting events today. In 1791, when the 1st Amendment was written, it'd take days for news to reach the next city, and weeks to reach another state! And printing presses were generally only wielded by a small set of accountable people. Of course there's no "reporting licenses" – yet. There are powerful lobbies that have shot down reasonable reporting restrictions, whenever they've been proposed. But such licenses could restore the balance of reporting to that which existed, when the Bill of Rights was written. And the 1st amendment is just an amendment – not even part of the original Constitution. It can be further reinterpreted, or new exceptions added, or revoked, if necessary. We'd still have the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights, in any case.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoWe infringe on the 2nd and 4th in the name of safety. Why stop there?
- jessaustin 7y agoBoth infringements are invariably outrageous overreaches. If there is any greater danger to the average citizen than the evisceration that 4A has suffered, it could only be your proposed destruction of 1A.
- TallGuyShort 7y agoJust to be clear, I was being sarcastic. I don't think rule of law actually exists with regard to the US Constitution anymore.
- jessaustin 7y agoHaha I wasn't sure...
- all2 7y agoIn the hands of government (and the ideologues who are in office, and the curmudgeons in mid-level bureaucracy) all of these would be used to silence political dissent.